I don't get it, why do conservatives defend the big banks?

[SoCalbound12]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

The big banks can charge whatever they feel like. Their customers will moan and groan yet stay with them.

I've been gone from doing business with big banks for over 10 years now.
No fees, free checking, Visa and ATM card.
Credit Unions all the way.

Do I think BoA is a predatory bank that's full of crony capitalists and do I hate them? Yes to both questions. While I think they should have been left to die and not bailed out, I simply left them. As a liberal I do think that the government can be used as an instrument of justice and regulation, if the government won't move fast enough it's up to We the People to move. Let's all drop BoA like a rock and hits them where it hurts because our Wall St policemen have fallen asleep behind the wheel.

The problem with too many liberals is that they're still buying into the idea that the mainstream Democratic party still gives a **** about the "99%" and really wants to go after Wall St bankster thugs. They don't, why would they bite the hand that feeds them? Look at Obama, his Cabinet reads like a Wall St Hall of Shame, and his donors from 2008 reads like a Stock Exchange. Wake up people, Obama's not looking out for you.

[sickofnyc]

Originally Posted by SamBarrow

And that has absolutely nothing to do with raising debit card fees on all banks.



That's a good one.

Dogmatic? You mean sound reasoning based on the fundamentals of economics and business? Is that more dogmatic than a ridiculous belief that the government can push some magic button, lower debit card fees, and business will just eat the costs when they have absolutely no reason to?

Unimaginative? That's even better. The last thing I want is people like you who are not even constrained to reality making policy decisions.

Attempting to communicate with you is a waste of time. I really don't know if you are seriously that dense or just being purposely obnoxious. I gave you an analogy so simple that a five year of would have understood. If in fact, you are really that slow on the uptake, my sincere condolences.

[rw47]

Originally Posted by sickofnyc

Attempting to communicate with you is a waste of time. I really don't know if you are seriously that dense or just being purposely obnoxious.

I'll take the latter.

Originally Posted by sickofnyc

I gave you an analogy so simple that a five year of would have understood. If in fact, you are really that slow on the uptake, my sincere condolences.

I understood your analogy genius, it's just that your little ramble about predatory capitalism was completely irrelevant to what I said. I was simply pointing out that it was the market that gave you those choices, not government. Am I wrong? Your example of switching banks was a perfect example of the component of capitalism that prevents companies like BoA from charging insane fees just because they "feel like it."

I'm not denying the flaws of capitalism, but a $5 debit card fee does not equal predatory capitalism. That is ridiculous.

By the way, calling someone else stupid doesn't make you look any smarter.

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by pghquest

This is a prime example as to
A) Democrats whine about a problem, thats not a problem
B) Write governmental legislation to fix what isnt a problem
C) Then whine about the outcome, which EVERYONE said would be the outcome of that governmental legislation
D) Just so they can whine that government writes new legislation to fix that problem again.

Circular reasoning to prove a moot point-

Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men, Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language (Amazon.com: Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language (9780975366264): Robert J. Gula: Books).